I am just trying to consider all the pros/cons of having multiple copy
storage pools per primary pool.  I was considering having one copy storage
pool that never gets taken offsite (remains in the library), and two copy
pools that get checked out and set to "offsite".  Obviously, the pros are
that, in the event of a disaster, you have multiple offsite storage pools
offsite, and volumes that are destroyed, damaged, or lost in transit to
your recovery center are duplicated in the storage pool set that remained
offsite.  Additionally, the onsite copy storage pool can be used to
restore damaged primary storage pool tapes.

For a recent disaster recovery test, I made a second copy of an offsite
storage pool, so we wouldn't have to take the only offsite tapes that
existed.  During the recovery process (for which I was creating the
procedures on the fly), I ran into a snag.  The secondary copy pool tapes
I took didn't have all of the data that existed in its primary, or the
"real" offsite copy pool (this was known ahead of time).  I set the
volumes in the primary storage pool to "destroyed", and tried to recover
some files.  When I got to the point where the files the client wished to
recover were only in the copy pool that was back home, TSM requested we
checkin, and mount that volume.  At the time, my work around was to delete
the volumes (discarddata=yes) in the storage pool that was back home,
since an access of "destroyed" is not allowed for copy pool volumes.  This
allowed me to restore the files.  I am now wondering if simply setting the
volumes to "unavailable" instead of "offsite" would have worked.

If you have input on this, I would like to hear it.  According to the TSM
Help system, if you set a sequential volume to unavailable, TSM will not
attempt to mount the volume.  That sounds pretty cut and dry, but without
a safe way to test that, I don't want to include that in any procedures I
create for DR.

Thanks in advance,
Todd